I apologized for the suggestions that had naturally emerged from the incomplete evidence but that suddenly acquired a mundane explanation. And I was disappointed by those birthers who didn't want to understand the explanation.

So while I am not quite sure where Barack Obama was born, I wouldn't accuse him because I don't see any evidence that hasn't been shown invalid yet.

However, there is another interesting thing I've never heard of: Obama's social security number. If you can explain some of the things to me, it could be useful.

Obama's social security number is 042-68-4425 (HTML). Right? Now, the numbers starting with 042 were assigned in the late 1970s in Connecticut only. Right?

As a woman in this video claims, the number actually had to be assigned in Connecticut on March 28th, 1977. Right?

The new holder of the social security card had to be personally present but Barack Obama couldn't have been because he was in Hawaii. Right?

The number was previously used by Jean Paul Ludwig born in France in 1890 who died in Honolulu in 1981, right? Is that legally OK to recycle dead people's SSNs? Did Ludwig get the SSN in 1924 as soon as he arrived to the U.S.? In 1981, Obama's grandmother Ms Dunham just worked in a Honolulu court where she had an access to deceased people's SSNs. Right?

Is that right that there are three birthdates linked to the SSN, one in 1980 and then 4/8/1961 and 8/4/1961? What's the explanation for the two different years and for the two "formats" of the 1961 date?

Is any of the information above classified? Does the female investigator who runs for president – to get standing – have the right to learn the official answers to all these questions?

See Google News for reports about this seemingly interesting new wave of birthers' activities.

snail feedback (26)
:

reader
Alan Biddle
said...

I know of at least once case, mine, where the SSAN does not match the state of issue. When I was 14 (1962) we were living in Lakeland, Florida, just east of Tampa. I need a SSAN, and my father went by the office in Lakeland coming home from work. He handed me my card, which remarkably I still have.The first 3 numbers are 424. You can look up one of the on line sources, and they all say it was issued in Alabama. Long before the Internet was around, I would encounter people whose "trick" was to guess where you grew up, using your SSAN. One was a personnel type who didn't, quite, accuse me of leaving something out of my personal history. It also came up when I was being processed for a Top Secret security clearance. I got it, BTW.My father had no relatives in Alabama, nor did the company he worked for have any facilities there. His job did not entail any travel, except for a yearly trip to corporate headquarters in MD. So it does happen.

I know of at least once case, mine, where the SSAN does not match the state of issue. When I was 14 (1962) we were living in Lakeland, Florida, just east of Tampa. I need a SSAN, and my father went by the office in Lakeland coming home from work. He handed me my card, which remarkably I still have.

The first 3 numbers are 424. You can look up one of the on line sources, and they all say it was issued in Alabama. Long before the Internet was around, I would encounter people whose "trick" was to guess where you grew up, using your SSAN. One was a personnel type who didn't, quite, accuse me of leaving something out of my personal history. It also came up when I was being processed for a Top Secret security clearance. I got it, BTW.

My father had no relatives in Alabama, nor did the company he worked for have any facilities there. His job did not entail any travel, except for a yearly trip to corporate headquarters in MD. So it does happen.

I got my SS card in the 70s, and I didn't need any face-to-face meeting. SS numbers are not reused: "We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system."

It seemed suspicious to me as well until someone pointed out that the ZIP code he was living in at the time and a ZIP code matching the issued Social Security number are 96814 and 06814, respectively. It's not too hard to imagine how a clerical error could have resulted in his being issued a Social Security number that looked like it came from the wrong state, and apparently there are many other stories of the same or similar things happening to other people.

It may have been the correct number in the past, but has likely been changed, after it was illegally obtained and published.

2) “... numbers starting with 042 were assigned in the late 1970s in Connecticut only. Right?”

Not necessarily. A SSN was never assigned or required at birth. Up until the late 1980s a SSN was usually obtained upon getting ones first paying job, 16 yrs old in most states. A citizen with a birth certificate or immigration documents may obtain a SSN wherever they live. Sometime in the eighties (during Reagan’s time) the law was changed to require a SSN to claim an income tax deduction for minor children. So most parents obtained SSNs for their infant children.

See: http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html

3) “As a woman in this video claims, the number actually had to be assigned in Connecticut on March 28th, 1977. Right?”

No. See link above.

4) “The new holder of the social security card had to be personally present but Barack Obama couldn't have been because he was in Hawaii. Right?”

A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.”

5) “Is any of the information above classified?”

The SSN is protected by privacy laws. One is not required to divulge it to anyone except the SS Administration (not even law enforcement). Although most all US taxpayers use a SSN for ID to the IRS, if one prefers, the IRS will provide a unique taxpayer ID number instead. Over the years the SSN has evolved into a quasi national ID, but one is not required to produce it or even have it at all. However, without a SSN earning money in the above-board economy cannot be legally done.

6a) “Does the female investigator who runs for president – to get standing– ..” ?

No. Elections are run by the states, with certain federal law requirements. The Secratary of State for each state is the one who on an administrative/ministerial basis executes the state ballot laws.

Once administrative procedures are exhaused, one can sue the Secretary of State in State or Ferderal court.

6b) “...have the right to learn the official answers to all these questions?”

Official answers have been published, years ago.

States, in this case Hawaii, do not like to be pushed around by cranks from other states. A pertinent quote might be, “In essence, they’re giving Bennett a taste of his own medicine, making him jump through a series of hoops to prove he has the legal authority to investigate the matter, much the same way the birthers have made Hawaii prove time and time again that the president is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States.”

Obama has at least 2 dozen different SS numbers if you gather them from all various documents. There's quite a lot reported about this if you search, some of it's way out there but some is very well-researched.

I was born in 1975 and issued a SS # at birth. That said, I don't put a lot of stock SS #s myself. My ID was stolen some years ago in Arizona; someone is using my SS # there now. I was unable to prove ownership for several years (lacking ID) so I eventually resorted to fake ID, including a fake SS #. When I was finally able to 'reclaim' my original SS #, the replacement card they sent me was two digits off. For some reason they make it a huge horrible ordeal to correct it, so I haven't bothered.

So I personally have 3 SS #s now, which I can use more or less interchangeably. And that is without even trying. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that Obama has many and that they don't necessarily make sense. If I didn't already hate the guy, I wouldn't even assume there was anything nefarious about it.

p.s. Snopes.com is a load of crap. Husband & wife team supposedly doing all that research (mostly from factcheck.org) and getting funded by some pretty questionable (fanatic liberal) entities.

The Honolulu Star Advertiser published Obama's birth notice shortly after his birth in Honolulu. Two or three years ago they reprinted the notice due to the "birther" hoopla.

It seems to me that one has to be a complete lunatic to seriously question Obama's citizenship. Newspapers live for news "scoops" and the fame, notoriety and money that would flow to anyone exposing an extensive conspiracy within the Star Advertiser organization would be just huge. The political benefits for Obama's opponents would be even bigger, so it is obvious that he was born in the US to anyone who has any remaining marbles.

This whole thing is just nuts regardless of how one feels about the Obama Presidency.

I don't know if Obama has a phony SSN or not, Lubos, but what I do know is that he's a nobody. He's an affirmative action teleprompter spokesperson in chief. He's never had a creative thought in his life, and he's never done a real job for any length of time.

But these are the types of people our society is allowing to rise to positions of power and influence. Sobering, isn't it.

This type of thing happens throughout history. Look at Rome, the Soviet Union, the British Empire. They're all in the dustbin.

Hmm, so the broader birther movement has made up this connection, right? This is unfortunately a typical example of a movement with sloppy pseudoscientific methods whose inaccuracies may sometimes be deliberate...

But you see Lubos, that is exactly why you're not as rational a person as you like to believe. You look closely at evidence that goes against what you want to believe in, and are sloppy with evidence that favors those things.

Gene's refutation of birther mania is probably the most elegant. I agree: a decades-spanning conspiracy that improbably never was discovered? How many people would have had to be paid off or otherwise silenced? For the mindset that gobbles up such silliness, I blame the novels of Robert Ludlum, which have sold in the tens of millions. They turned full-blown paranoia into a carnival thrill ride. And the X-Files series on television, of course.

No, the presidential candidate bringing the lawsuit is the one who brought up the name. She is the professional investigator. She didn't make up the connection. Somehow it was connected in her research(or she is lying). Claims to have found repeated appearances of this birthdate in 1890 associated with this SSN.

The arrows and page down did not work. I'm not getting the problem now. I think it was because it was a long comment like the one below(above.) The scroll looks like it would work now though. test test

Actually, although improbable on some grounds, it was certainly possible to identify how Obama could have obtained a valid Hawaiian birth certificate without being actually born there.

In 1960 in Hawaii there were basically 3 ways in which a birth would be reported, if born in a hospital (or specialist maternity facility), the responsible mediacal person documented it, if born outside those but attended by a registered professional, the professional reported it, but if born outside and not attended by a professional, then the relatives (not necessarily the parents) were able to attest to the birth. These differences should show up on the "long form" (but not the originally released "short form") certificate that lists the actual claimed place of birth and reporting professional or person.

The only conspiracy then involves first the grandparents when reporting the birth, then much later the records are sealed, presumably to prevent the first group investigating the certificate from finding this out, and that was the Clinton campaign back in 2007-8.

So it's feasible, but I agree rather unlikely. This however only establishes Obama's citizenship, not that he is a "natural born" citizen as required by the constitution. However the exact meaning "natural born" has never been definitively established, the only people who can currently establish that is SOTUS, and to date they have refused. It could mean "born in the US as a citizen", or it could mean "born in the US of two citizen parents"; the second of which would disqualify Obama. It simply isn't clear what the writers of the constitution intended, They specifically excluded those alive at the time from that qualification because so many people were born outside the USA of the time, but applied it as a late change without much by way of an explanation of why or more importantly, what it meant.

What is clear is that the somewhat obsessive secrecy of this "most transparent administration evah" does hatch an unusual amount of conspiracy reasoning, presumably to try to explain WHY all the secrecy. We knew far more about GW, his school records, etc etc, than we know about BO.

I myself suspect that there are little secrets hidden in the records that although not terminal would be damaging. Perhaps the most likely one is that BO claimed a special form of payment or sponsorship whilst at University on the basis of a claim to have been born in Kenya. By not releasing records, such rumours persist, although like all such theories most are bound to be wrong. Why hide everything though...

He's only produced two documents and did it by posting a scan online, with numerous layers of edits. Hardly the standard of proof anyone would need to get a simple drivers license, or register to vote. On the SSN, the other posters are correct that it wasn't a requirement to get one at birth, and usually wasn't applied for until you were about to get a job.